Interesting to see if companies will be slapped back to reality away from their DEI bullshit that hires lesser qualified individuals simply because of their levels of melanin.
Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
241–250 of 1001 posts
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t think this is a bad idea conceptually, but I worry that the implementation would be a race to the bottom. Who gets to decide who’s been the “most oppressed?” It seems like nearly anyone could feel slighted by this.
It's not really about "who is the MOST oppressed" but rather that there are many oppressed peoples who are right now slipping through the cracks altogether. Probably we need to support all of them, at the expense of people who could afford it (the upper middle class and up), not make them fight for scraps against each other. I think the likely outcome of such a system (my hypothesis only, untested in reality) is that…
I think the qualification of how to label the matrix parent mentions is irrelevant. The chart clearly exists and has been used. Whether we call it something like 'race conscious equity generator' or 'oppressed totem pole' is just a way to polarize each side of the spectrum ( and adds to the point GP made about whether it is just a play for making people fight over relatively stupid stuff ).
The point is that points for being $race and $class exists. As a society, do we want to fine tune everything to ensure that our individual mix of variables are accounted for or do we want individual to adjust to societal mold?
It is a real question. For school, that clearly values obedience to the mold and passivity ( for better or worse ), I would assume the latter.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#243As someone of Hispanic descent this is very interesting to me. Affirmative Action probably helped my father, whose father was a construction worker and mother a homemaker both of whom dropped out of high school, get into college and ultimately become a doctor. But because my father was a doctor, I had a fairly privileged upbringing. I'm a generation removed, but growing up in California always had to indicate my back…
> I went to MIT, and to this day I wonder how much checking "Hispanic" helped me there and if I "deserved" to go.
the problem with aa is not about people getting in that didn't "deserve" it, it's people getting in who don't have the means to succeed; elite colleges brag about their diverse admissions but don't talk about people who go on to fail when they could've succeeded at less prestigious schools
if you succeeded then you deserved to get in.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#244The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong. But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people…
European naturalized American here and yes I do agree with you. In the few EU countries where I lived before settling in the US it would be unthinkable to include race in these policies. Just help poor people and that's it.
I'll put on my tin foil hat here, but I genuinely believe that "race" (and now "gender") is being weaponized by the American elites/politicians to form nice clear camps/teams for voters. People need to focus on race otherwise they would start to pay attention to the enormous social/financial disparity between the top and the bottom of the pyramid. And we really do not want that.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not just.. well, let poor people come first? Would the goal suddenly not be met if poor smart white kids get into good schools, too? This is what I will never understand, why don't we focus on just helping the poor instead of based on race. If people of a certain race are proportionally more poor than people of another race than they will be helped more and it helps out the people of a specific race. However in…
Dr. Martin Luther King said he dreams that one day his children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Here we are 60 years later still focused on the color of people’s skin.
Do you think that Dr. King would argue that, aside from affirmative action, we live in such a world today?
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#246The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong. But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people…
> I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race"
Is that true? I have heard that white males benefit most from admission rules to colleges (perhaps primarily in California?). But maybe that's "quota rules" and not affirmative action.
Regardless, it appears as though the while male is probably going to take a hit if all admissions become strictly academically based.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#247> Nothing in this opinion should be construed as prohibiting universities from considering an applicant’s discussion of how race affected his or her life, be it through discrimination, inspiration, or otherwise. But this is affirmative action. What did they strike down? Also god damn I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions. Even the ones I would personally benefit from. This is going to ruin the…
>> I hate this supreme court for overruling their own decisions Which Supreme Court decision did they overrule here? They upheld the Equal Protection Clause. Should they have overruled that? "Our Constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens" They upheld that. Should they have overruled it? They had to overrule something. People are mad because they didn't overrule the Equal Prot…
That's not how this works. The supreme court interpreted the equal protection clause to mean A in the original case and decided that limited discrimination didn't violate the constitution. Disagree with it all you want, I'll join you, but that was the ruling. Today the supreme court interpreted the equal protection clause to mean B and struck down their previous decision.
Also lol our constitution isn't anything blind and both acknowledges and establishes different classes of person in order to make rules about them.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#2481. The largest beneficiaries of admissions policies at elite institutions are legacy admissions of wealth alumni’s kids. If SCOTUS wants to interfere with the admissions policies of private institutions based on the equal protections clause, maybe that’s a better place to start.
2. The vast majority of students attend colleges that accept almost everyone.
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#249In Brazil, public universities were dominated by the rich, mainly whites, since the entrance exams required high grades that only those who could pay for expensive exam prep courses would have.
Since 2012, with the Law of Social Quotas, that reality has changed, since 50% of the new admission spots are destined for students coming from public high schools, with further subdivisions for racial minorities based on the demographic makeup of each Brazilian state. Those racial minorities quotas are as high as 30% at some universities.
I could personally see that change, since I did undergrad in engineering 10 years ago, and my colleagues were mainly white. I'm doing another undergrad and my new colleagues come from truly different backgrounds, some are black, poor, from indigenous origin... and that matters because if we don't share the same spaces as universities students, we probably won't share latter on, when occupying spaces of power
Re: Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action in college admissions
#250The concept of affirmative action is foreign to me (quite literally so). I only know it from American media, and I've come understand it to mean "positively discriminate based on race, so long as it's a minority race" - please correct me of I'm wrong. But anyway, my question for the Americans here who grok this stuff: I assume the intent is to help disadvantaged people have opportunities that more priviledged people…
The intent is to factor in some unknown "racism" value. Poor White and Asian kids still beat out poor Black and Hispanic kids academically on average, so if you naively stratified by income, you'd still wind up with a mostly white and Asian student population. There are a lot of reasons Black and Hispanic kids underperform, and it's just easier for the school to short circuit all that and choose based on race rather…
Except it's not mostly poor, hardworking ADOS (African descendents of slavery) students that benefit. It's rich, Black students that are benefiting, especially those from outside the US and no lineage from slavery. The problem with affirmative action is that everyone is only looking literally at skin color, which is the opposite of what we should be doing.